T D Jakes?


AnthonyB
 Share

Recommended Posts

PC,

At Hillsong conference this year they are having T D Jakes, I'm curious as to your thoughts on him? (specifically his "onenss" leanings)

His churches websites defintely uses "manifestations" not "persons" in regards to the persons of the godhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T. D. Jakes was raised in Oneness. He does not specifically teach it. However, my sense is that he respects the church and people of his upbringing, and so refuses to condemn them. Fundamentalist critics have tried to corner him by demanding that he denounce his spiritual heritage, or be labeled a Oneness proponent. It appears he does not feel obligated to answer people who seem to intend him no favors anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could make the case that the Book of Mormon, especially the manuscript and first edition, could lead one to a "Oneness" interpretation of the nature of God.

I would also add that one could make a case for the "Pentecostal" part of "Oneness" using the Book of Mormon also...

The Nephites:

Clapped their hands for joy

Shouted for joy

Were "Slain in the Spirit"

Prayed to Jesus at times

I dare say if someone completely unaware of the traditional LDS form of worship and beliefs concerning the nature of God were to read the Book of Mormon, they would think it was written by a "Oneness Pentecostal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also add that one could make a case for the "Pentecostal" part of "Oneness" using the Book of Mormon also...

The Nephites:

Clapped their hands for joy

Shouted for joy

Were "Slain in the Spirit"

Prayed to Jesus at times

I dare say if someone completely unaware of the traditional LDS form of worship and beliefs concerning the nature of God were to read the Book of Mormon, they would think it was written by a "Oneness Pentecostal".

Well, someone ignorant of the verses that they sited anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as i,m concerned he is simply another nut case.:mellow:

Okay...wow...that sure came out of nowhere. This is a man who speaks to thousands. He gets prisoners to connect with God. He speaks to women who've been abused/molested/trampled upon, and helps them find deliverence in Jesus.

Maybe you don't like his style, or something he's said. But "nutcase???" I'm not getting that. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bytor...financial excess and greed might be a worthy conversation...but I didn't have the impression that is what jadams was addressing.

Not sure what Jadams was addressing...maybe he has this thread confused with current events and is making a very erudite comment that simple conservatives souls like you and I can't understand do to the progressive and enlightened nature of his vocabulary? Maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presume he subscribes to: Oneness Pentecostalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a rehashing of Modalism, sometimes referred to as Sabellianism. Sabellianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not our place to criticize the conclusions that others draw from the Biblical record. Unitarianism, Arianism, Trinitarianism, Modalism and the LDS Godhead viewpoints are all valid and reasonable conclusions that could easily be drawn by anyone reading the Bible for the first time. If the Trinity is to be viewed as the traditional orthodox view, Oneness Pentecostalism and the LDS Godhead Doctrine would simply be a semi-equal divergence from the "traditional" and "official" Trinity teaching of Christianity, but going in the opposite direction. Modalism in its various incarnations erases the distinction between the three persons in the Eternal Godhead. The LDS view goes the opposite direction, upholding the Trinitarian idea that there are three distinct persons in God, but denouncing the teaching that the three share "one essence and one being."

Shortened version: Oneness Pentecostalism is slightly more foreign to LDS thinking than the Trinity because it moves farther to the opposite of our understanding of God.

In the end: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, myself, was ministered to by his book "Loose that Man and Set Him Free", though I may not agree with his particular preaching style or personal excess.

"...anything virtuous lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

His books are praiseworthy, even if, perhaps (and we can't know for sure), he is doing it for money. But seeing interviews he has done, I believe he is sincere, if not a little caught up in the prosperity gospel craze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded, imho, you presume too much. Jakes has remained vague on the issue of the Trinity. His church's statement of faith says "God is triune in manifestations." That could be read as modalism, since Trinity is not mentioned. But all we can say with certainty is that he's chosen not to emphasize the teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC,

Jakes on the "trinity" actually sounds a bit like Alexander Campbell. Wanting to avoid non biblical terms, use biblical phrases and just wanting people to follow Jesus rather then get caught in abstract arguments over "precise" non-biblical theological words. (Also Jakes church’s emphasis on the need to approximate baptism to the salvation experience is something Campbell would applaud but definitely not the prosperity stuff nor the tongues!)

This is his churches statement. To me it sounds “oneness”

God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

“Manifestations” of God make me think of the burning bush or the pillar of fire, not the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You can’t grieve the burning bush; the pillar of fire wasn’t able to address the Father in prayer; the shekinah can move but it still seems in a different category.

Whilst one can use unorthodox terms and still mean biblically sounds things by it, when someone from a particular tradition uses an unusual term, that is distinctive to that tradition and purposefully avoids the more common phrase (Can you find a quote from Jakes’ where he uses “person” of the trinity.) I think he should be queried as to what he means by it?

So some questions for you PC,

Can someone (in your opinion) hold a theology that is acceptable to both “Oneness” and “Trinitarian”?

Is One God in three Manifestations an appropriate description of the Godhead?

God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing only in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I think adding the “only” to Jakes’ church’s wording would help make it sound more orthodox and certainly create a clear distinction between “the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and the other ways God has been manifested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthony,

Bishop Jakes should speak for himself. He's intentionally chosen not to clarify his position. My sense is that it's not important for him to camp on one side or the other. He respects his heritage, loves his trinitarian brothers and sisters, and leaves the matter for others to fine-tooth-comb.

I asked one of my professors what he thought about the Oneness doctrine in relation to salvation and orthodoxy. His response, "Oh, I believe they are saved--they just need to grow up and embrace orthodoxy." In other words, he finds the Oneness theology to be superficial, but believes the leadership has staked their position there, and will not easily be moved. 3:1 vs. 1:3...so close, but so far. :::sigh:::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

T. D. Jakes was raised in Oneness. He does not specifically teach it. However, my sense is that he respects the church and people of his upbringing, and so refuses to condemn them. Fundamentalist critics have tried to corner him by demanding that he denounce his spiritual heritage, or be labeled a Oneness proponent. It appears he does not feel obligated to answer people who seem to intend him no favors anyway.

Hes obviously doing nothing more than making money.:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hes obviously doing nothing more than making money.:mellow:

OK...that slam came out of nowhere??? :eek: There is no doubting that he has profited from the work he does. And, how appropriate that is might well be a legitimate discussion. But to condemn and dismiss with such a cryptic judgement...am I misreading you??? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share